MOTUnation.com

Phaedrum wrote: I cannot understand how MOTU so drastically slowed the program for the relatively few upgrades.

I think the answer to that is that they didn't. Something has gone wrong with your particular setup.

Shooshie wrote:

Babz wrote:Does this other project you're working on involve bananas, Vegemite, or breathing simian-devolving toxic fumes, Shooshie? You are starting to sound like monkey man!

Babz

Vegemite? Is that anything like Vita-Meata-Vegimin? That stuff that Lucy Ricardo did the ad for, and kept sipping from the bottle with each take of the video, until she was blotto? I think I could use a bottle of THAT stuff right now!

Shooshie

Mate, a jar of Vegemite'll probably kill you.

It's like toothpaste. You have to consume it slowly. Spread thinly on buttered toast it's unique and hard to beat.

I always laugh when "celebrity" visitors to the shores of Jungleville indulge in the requisite sample of our beloved spread. The look on their faces is invariably priceless. Mind you, Tomomi Itano, the AKB48 graduate who's now a solo EDM artist in Japan, when visiting recently dunked a knife into a jar and dumped a veritable truckload into her mouth. Everyone waited to see her gag or whatever, but she turned around and said she liked it and that it reminded her of miso. Go figure. Only time I've seen someone eat so much (not as the product's intend) and not spit it out and go for a liquid.

FWIW, hardly anyone down here would be aware of this; it's only 'cause I'm into asian pop that I saw the interview.

Unfortunately, your (BaysWater) simplistic, reflexive answer is totally incorrect. NOTHING has gone wrong with my particular setup. You should have read my post more carefully--I A/B'ed DP 8 and DP 9 using the same template/setup.

I suspect those with no drastic slowdowns are using relatively simple track setups. The more complex the project, the more sensitive to slowdowns. As shown below, DP 9 is clearly slower than DP 8.

The reason you answer is wrong is that the redlining of the Processing meter (and subsequent crackling and popping of audio, as well as stuttering display) that ONLY occurs in DP 9 (in my basic setup) were eliminated by removing (not bypassing) a few Inserts (in my case, Valhalla reverbs, a few Amplitude 3s, and an ARIA Player). That was sufficient to bring down the processing to moderate levels and enable me to run the program in version 9 with a 256 buffer. When switching to DP 8 (and earlier versions), it was not necessary to remove any Inserts or instruments in order to run the program smoothly. These results clearly suggest DP 9 is running slower than DP 8, with sensitive dependence on setup complexity.

Simplistic as it sounds, Phaedrum, I'm wondering if you repaired permissions after installing DP9?

Simple as it might be, even simplistic if you insist, your attribution to DP 9 as the sole culprit is even more simplistic. Look at the posts from users with large orchestral templates that have no problems similar to your, the visual evidence from various demos and videos. Consider that there are users with projects of various sizes that see some of the usual new version bugs but not the sort of serious slow down you see. The defining factor is your setup. Otherwise if the code was bad we'd all see the same thing.

My question to those testing their template remains: how much actual EDITING have you done in DP9?

I can run any of my projects in 9, I cannot add a volume point w/o crashing.

Phaedrum wrote:Unfortunately, your (BaysWater) simplistic, reflexive answer is totally incorrect. NOTHING has gone wrong with my particular setup. You should have read my post more carefully--I A/B'ed DP 8 and DP 9 using the same template/setup.

I suspect those with no drastic slowdowns are using relatively simple track setups. The more complex the project, the more sensitive to slowdowns. As shown below, DP 9 is clearly slower than DP 8.

The reason you answer is wrong is that the redlining of the Processing meter (and subsequent crackling and popping of audio, as well as stuttering display) that ONLY occurs in DP 9 (in my basic setup) were eliminated by removing (not bypassing) a few Inserts (in my case, Valhalla reverbs, a few Amplitude 3s, and an ARIA Player). That was sufficient to bring down the processing to moderate levels and enable me to run the program in version 9 with a 256 buffer. When switching to DP 8 (and earlier versions), it was not necessary to remove any Inserts or instruments in order to run the program smoothly. These results clearly suggest DP 9 is running slower than DP 8, with sensitive dependence on setup complexity.

FWIW, Large projects (250 tracks or more) are running identically in DP8 and DP9 for me. Exact same project (created in DP8), simply opened in DP9.

There must be some feature you are using in DP that's causing this, or a third-party tool (plugin?) that is not behaving properly with DP9.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:My question to those testing their template remains: how much actual EDITING have you done in DP9?

I can run any of my projects in 9, I cannot add a volume point w/o crashing.

I just tried in a few projects across 2 computers. Adding volume points works fine here.

I've already done this dozens of times in DP9, along with a lot of editing and automation, with no crashes.

Perhaps I'm a lucky one here... how rare would that be!

It does seem to be just a few seeing this. I'm going to reinstall from the DVD. DV-duh!

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:My question to those testing their template remains: how much actual EDITING have you done in DP9?

I can run any of my projects in 9, I cannot add a volume point w/o crashing.

I've done a lot of editing on my MBP where I keep a huge test project with load of audio, plugins, MIDI, automation, Custom Consoles, and a few kitchen sinks. Not so much yet on my iMac where I do more regular music stuff. (Been trying out Mixbus3 -- now there's a buggy initial release)

Not to say there is nothing wrong with DP 9. Hard to believe it wasn't tested on a PM like yours, and if it doesn't work on your system, it's not very future proof.

But it works on a mix of systems as reported here, and so logically, aside from things like unsupported video cards, it ought to work on any similarly configured Mac. What makes this more puzzling is that it still works on 10.6.8 which means it must be pretty basic in what it needs from the OS.

I have similar problem with TurboCad. The current version locks up on my iMac, and sometimes takes 30 second to update the screen after a simple edit. Others with similar Macs are not seeing the problem. Maybe OS X has become too complicated and unmanageable.

Mixbus3... what a disaster.

Robert Randolph wrote:Mixbus3... what a disaster.

I did manage to finish a mix in it. Sounds good. But a lot of bug dodging.

I stand by all the statements I made about the poor performance of DP 9 versus DP 8, with one important caveat: those differences disappear after a variable amount of time (typically 3-5 minutes on my system)!

It appears DP 9 engages in an extraordinary amount of internal processing and disk writing for the first few minutes (again, on my early 2008 Mac Pro) compared to DP 8. During that time, DP is so sluggish as to be unusable (each of the 8 cores shows activity above 58%). Once DP settles down, all is well in DP 9.

I have just ordered a solid state drive in hopes of at least partly ameliorating DP 9's startup sluggishness on my system!

Phaedrum wrote:I have just ordered a solid state drive in hopes of at least partly ameliorating DP 9's startup sluggishness on my system!

Regardless of whether it takes care of the issue with DP, you will love booting from SSD.

Phaedrum wrote:I stand by all the statements I made about the poor performance of DP 9 versus DP 8, with one important caveat: those differences disappear after a variable amount of time (typically 3-5 minutes on my system)!

It appears DP 9 engages in an extraordinary amount of internal processing and disk writing for the first few minutes (again, on my early 2008 Mac Pro) compared to DP 8. During that time, DP is so sluggish as to be unusable (each of the 8 cores shows activity above 58%). Once DP settles down, all is well in DP 9.

I have just ordered a solid state drive in hopes of at least partly ameliorating DP 9's startup sluggishness on my system!

It might be creating analysis files, etc. if those preferences didn't carry over. What you described is something that seems highly unusual and nothing I've seen anyone else report prior to your doing so.